Do you seed your directory with nofollow

Hi, i need some advice about seeding.

Seeding is a process that when you just started out a new directory, you want to include quality websites to fill up the empty categories, so the directory will look worthwhile (to both search engine and visitors) before you announce it. silencer had written a great article about how important it is for new directory. link

My question is, should we seed with nofollow, why; and if not, why not.

Things to think about:
1. Ok we all know nofollow link will have no benefits (PR) transfering through. A newborn directory has no PR anyway, so would it be more "moral" to use nofollow so you don't "effect" the others?

2. On the selfish point of view, since dofollow link will transfer link juice to the link, so wouldn't it be better if you use nofollow so your PR (after G awarded you PR...) won't be affected?

3. What if some time later the "quality site" (assume large corporation) found out you seed (link) them and they sue you for linking them without permission?

Would like to hear your opinions about this. Hopefully some experienced directory owners can share their thoughts.

Thanks.

 

This is the whole problem that this nofollow introduces. Suddenly people now debate about what they should be doing rather than just linking naturally as they did before it was introduced (or should we say altered from its original purpose).

My thought is this. The reason for seeding is to include websites that you would recommend to others.

Nofollow, is considered a way of not recommending something.

So if you seed with nofollow, what you are basically saying is that the content you are listing isn't recommended. Kinda defeats the purpose no?

 

The way I see it is that if I seed a site on my directory it's for my benefit not theirs, so if I went on to nofollow that link it would be unethical and contrary to the purpose of providing a resource of trusted sites.

 

I never nofollow a site I added manually to my directory. To me this is silly and might send warning signals to Google that you are doing something unscrupulous while at the same time appear to be legit.

 

Why would I include any site that I don't actually recommend to the visitors of my directory?

To some extent, if you feel a nofollow tag is required, perhaps you shouldn't be linking to the site in the first place?

 

better if combine nofollow n dofollow. if your website receive Dofollow links only. Goolge will suspect your website trying to manipulate PR.
that why some Nofollow Link will make your Website Looks Natural.

 

I seed my directories with dofollow good links to the sites that i list.

 

Of course, in light of Google's latest video, are they going to consider paid links/reviews "advertorials"?

 

giving dofolllow for premium member

 

Thanks silencer, syted, YMC

I seed site without nofollow anyway, as I think it is natural to do. and will continue to do that.

Though I have seen others (not necessarily directory)(not necessarily seeding) often use nofollow on even not a paid link, not an ad, not sponsored. Sometimes i see nofollow link on front page's editor's choice.

Naturally nofollow means "not recommend", but nowadays it may mean a bit more than that.

Yes it's weird. The purpose is twisted. G has created ambiguous thing that caused trouble and confusion. what a grey area they created...

It should be vanished for good.

 

I wonder how they work that out. Most reputable directory owners seed their own listings. Those aren't paid for. I think extrapolating to that reasoning is a stretch... a big stretch.

 

Google can't tell which links are "paid for" and which ones are the result of seeding. I suspect with this Penguin 2.0 there's going to be big trouble for anyone with followed links in traditionally 'advertorial' placements. I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.

If Google had just used something like rel="paid" this whole thing would have been less confusing and no one would have had to worry about whether or not to use it. Problem is, they used nofollow and explained it to mean "not recommended". Why would any reputable site owner link to something they didn't recommend? It was a stupid solution for a problem they themselves created with visible PR and they just continue to make it more confusing with each update.

 

I've seen this discussion elsewhere. Hmmm.....
http://internet.forumsee.com/a/m/s/p12-27163-048882--you-seed-your-directory-with-nofollow.html
http://topicworld.net/do-you-seed-your-directory-with-nofollow-2220502.htm

Since you are so focused on pagerank, why not just tattoo a green toolbar on your forehead? Add noindex meta tags to all of your directory pages and the world will be spared from another juice focused directory.

 

I use dofollow and nofollow simultaneously. Because my web directory is built around a traffic sharing system, I use dofollow for those members that actively use my widget, while the rest of the entries in my web directory are nofollow. This is the type of incentive to those that use the widget that helps promote my website rectory and spread the word quickly.

 

@YMC - I agree they are misappropriating the tag. It was designed for blog comment spam. It was never supposed to be about telling a search engine which links are paid and therefore not to be passed link juice.

Then what also happens is some sites use nofollow, for different reasons... All of which the search engines reads as "these are paid links" even when they aren't.

I agree they could've used a rel=paid tag but then people would misuse that and pretend its not paid and is just a link they dont recommend or something else. Adding extra tags complicates things when we ALL know the solution is much simpler.

The whole idea is stupid, and basically it all comes back to visible PR.

The simplest of all solutions is to make PR non-visible. Then it doesn't matter. Because then people will link normally. They won't be thinking about it. Out of sight, out of mind, and the web will return to somewhat normality.

MC states that they don't turn PR off because non-SEO types use it to gauge the trust in a site. To me, that's like saying we don't enforce drink driving laws because people like to go to the pub.

After witnessing how fake the visible PR is, and how over-manipulated it is, and how poor a measure it is of the trust of a site --- my reasoning for turning it off would be that "non-SEO types use it to gauge the trust in a site". Because it doesn't give them an accurate gauge at all. It is totally misleading and they are fooled into thinking a site is trustworthy and highly regarded by Google because it's number is high, when in fact is has used underhanded methods to gain that high number and should be avoided at all costs.

Until PR is turned off we will get Google's ridiculous work arounds. PR needs to be turned off. That's the only answer. Every other answer is dumb.

Topicworld scrapes the content from Digitalpoint... what's your point?

 

Nofollow completely defeats the purpose of the internet itself... Without links, there is no way to get from point a to point b. The whole idea behind the hyperlink was to move people from one page to another. I realize the days of browsing the web minus a search engine with mosaic are long gone, but the original principle is still as valid as it was in the early part of the 90's. It's completely and utterly pointless to discount a link. I see no reason why you would want to do that. If you don't want someone to follow a link DON'T insert the link!

If we left it up to Google to map the internet you'd get only what GOOGLE thinks you should see, rather than what you want to find.

 

I totally agree with you. I can't add to what you've said without writing an essay, so I may as well write a blog post, and that's what I am doing today

 

Was a good discussion here.. Too bad 1/2 of its gone poof!

 

It's so weird being here. It's like I've lost two weeks of my life or something. Can't imagine the havoc it's caused over in the more commercial areas of DP.

 

what happened exactly? I noticed the site was offline for a while, but that isn't unusual. There was some chatter on Twitter about it all, but I never pay much notice to that.